NOTES

Section 3: Bar of Limitation

Section 3(1) mandates dismissal of every suit, appeal, or application

filed after the prescribed limitation period in the Schedule, subject to
Sections 4-24. Courts must enforce this bar suo motu, even without a
defence plea, making it a mandatory procedural safeguard.

Key Provisions

 Absolute Duty on Courts: The provision operates independently

of merits; time-barred matters are dismissed outright to prevent
stale claims and ensure evidence freshness.
 Bars Remedy, Not Right: Limitation extinguishes judicial
remedy but leaves the substantive right intact, allowing it as a
defence in other proceedings.
 No Jurisdictional Defect: A decree in a time-barred suit is not
void; it can be challenged and set aside on limitation grounds.

Section 3(2): Institution of Proceedings

Defines institution dates for computation:

 Ordinary suits: Plaint presentation to proper officer.

 Pauper suits: Application for leave to sue as pauper.
 Company winding-up claims: Submission to official liquidator.
 Set-off: Same date as principal suit.
 Counter-claim: Date made in court.
 High Court motions: Presentation to proper officer.

Landmark Case Law

Bhutnath Bannerjee v. State of West Bengal (AIR 1964 SC 1336):

Supreme Court affirmed courts' authority to dismiss time-barred suits
suo motu, regardless of limitation plea.
Punjab National Bank v. Surendra Prasad Sinha (1992) 2 SCC
174: Rules of limitation prevent remedies, not rights; equitable
considerations cannot override statutory bar.
ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Trishla Apparels Pvt. Ltd. (2015): Section 3
applies even at appellate stage; mandatory dismissal for delayed
filings.
Collector (LA) v. Katiji (1987) 2 SCC 107: Liberal construction
urged for exclusions, but core bar remains strict.

Section 6: Legal Disability

Section 6 of the Limitation Act, 1963 extends the limitation period

for persons entitled to institute a suit or make an application for
execution of a decree who are under legal disability at the time the
period begins to run. Legal disabilities include minority, insanity, or
idiocy; the provision ensures such persons do not lose rights due to
incapacity.

Key Provisions

 Sub-section (1): Where a person is a minor, insane, or idiot

when the limitation period starts, they may institute the suit or
application within the same prescribed period after the
disability ceases, as per the Schedule's third column.
 Sub-section (2): Applies to multiple disabilities occurring
simultaneously or successively; limitation runs from cessation
of the last disability.
 Sub-section (3): If the disabled person dies during disability,
their legal representative gets the full extended period from
death; if death occurs after disability ceases but within the
extended period, the representative gets the remaining time.
 Sub-section (4): Includes child in womb as minor. Does not
apply to suits for accounts, pre-emption, possession of
hereditary office, or declaratory decrees.

Computation Rule
The limitation period shifts entirely until disability ends, then runs
afresh for the full original duration. Maximum extension capped at 3
years under Section 8.

Essential Ingredients

 Disability must exist at the time limitation begins (cause of

action accrual).
 Applies only to entitled persons; not joint claimants unless all
disabled (Section 7).
 Disability must cease for period to start; insanity recovery
restarts clock.

Landmark Case Law Summaries

Rangammal v. Kuppuswami (2011 SC): Supreme Court held

limitation begins only after disability cessation; reinforced protection
for minors/insane, dismissing suit filed prematurely.

Gowramma v. Shivanand (2019 Kar HC): Karnataka High Court

emphasized Section 6 safeguards incapacitated persons' rights,
allowing suit post-majority despite original period expiry.

Bailchon Karan v. Basant Kumari Naik: Only entitled persons

claim benefit; those without initial right to sue cannot invoke Section
6.

Zafir v. Amiruddin: Applies where one plaintiff or multiple

defendants under disability.

Udhavji Anandji Ladha v. Bapudas Ramdas Darbar: Disability

must exist at limitation start; post-accrual disability does not qualify.

The computation of limitation periods under the Limitation Act, 1963

follows certain prescribed rules to calculate the time available for
initiating legal proceedings. Key principles and examples for this
computation are outlined below:

Exclusion of the First Day

  The day when the cause of action arises is excluded from the
computation of the limitation period.
 Example: If a cause of action arises on January 1 and the
limitation period is 30 days, the period is counted from January
2, making the last day January 31.

Starting Point of Limitation Period

 The limitation period begins from the day the cause of action
accrues, which varies by case type:
 Contract cases: from the date of breach.
 Tort cases: from the date of wrongful act/damage.
 Property disputes: from the date of dispossession or when
the right accrues.
 Debt recovery: from the date the debt becomes due.
 Example: If a contract is breached on March 1 and the limitation
is 3 years, the suit must be filed by February 28 three years later.

Exclusion of Court Holidays

 If the last day for filing falls on a court holiday or non-working

day, the limitation period extends to the next working day.

Exclusions During Legal Proceedings

 Time during which legal proceedings are stayed or injunctions

are in place is excluded from limitation computation.
 Example: If an injunction stays proceedings for 2 months, these
2 months stop the clock on limitation.

Extensions in Specific Circumstances

 Time required to obtain certified copies of judgments or awards

is excluded.
 Periods of legal disability (minority, unsoundness) extend
limitation as per sections 6 to 8.
 Periods of fraud or mistake delay the limitation start until such
conditions are discovered.

Example Summary:
  Cause of action date: January 1 (excluded)
 Limitation: 1 year
 Court holiday on December 31
 Final day to file suit: January 2 next year (because December 31
is a holiday and January 1 excluded)

These computation rules ensure fairness while enforcing timely legal

actions.

COMPUTATION OF PERIOD OF LIMITATION 12. Exclusion of

time in legal proceedings. 13. Exclusion of time in cases where leave
to sue or appeal as a pauper is applied for. 14. Exclusion of time of
proceeding bona fide in court without jurisdiction. 15. Exclusion of
time in certain other cases. 16. Effect of death on or before the accrual
of the right to sue. 17. Effect of fraud or mistake. 18. Effect of
acknowledgment in writing. 19. Effect of payment on account of debt
or of interest on legacy. 20. Effect of acknowledgment or payment by
another person. 21. Effect of substituting or adding new plaintiff or
defendant. 22. Continuing breaches and torts. 23. Suits for
compensation for acts not actionable without special damage. 24.
Computation of time mentioned Notes of above topic section wise ,
with case relevant case law

Section 12: Exclusion of Time in Legal Proceedings

Section 12 excludes specific periods from limitation computation for

suits, appeals, and applications. Subsection (1) excludes the day from
which the period begins; subsection (2) excludes the judgment
pronouncement day and time to obtain copies of decrees/orders for
appeals/revisions/reviews; subsection (3) extends this to judgment
copies; subsection (4) applies to setting aside awards. Courts exclude
time diligently spent obtaining copies, ensuring fairness without
penalizing procedural delays.
Case Law: In Chhitu v. Mathuralal (AIR 1980 MP 75), the court
held time for certified copies must be excluded only if applied
promptly, emphasizing diligence.

Section 13: Exclusion of Time for Pauper Applications

Section 13 excludes time spent prosecuting a good faith application
for leave to sue/appeal as a pauper if rejected, allowing the suit/appeal
to proceed on paying court fees as if timely filed. This protects
indigent litigants from losing limitation due to pauper proceedings.
Case Law: Anandi Bai v. Ram Narayan (1959 MP 178) clarified
exclusion applies only to bona fide applications, requiring proof of
good faith prosecution.

Section 14: Exclusion for Bona Fide Proceedings Without

Jurisdiction

Section 14 excludes time spent prosecuting with due diligence another

civil proceeding in good faith in a court lacking jurisdiction, for the
same matter/relief. It covers suits, appeals, revisions; misjoinder
counts as jurisdictional defect; both start/end days are included.
Case Law: Union of India v. West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. (AIR
1963 SC 395) required proof of due diligence, good faith, and same
relief for exclusion.

Section 15: Exclusion in Certain Other Cases

Section 15 excludes: (1) injunction/stay periods; (2)

notice/consent/sanction time; (3) receiver/liquidator periods up to 3
months; (4) time challenging execution sales; (5) defendant's absence
from India. Both application/receipt dates count for consents.
Case Law: Shiv Lal v. Thakur Lal (1978 Raj 44) excluded stay
order continuance, starting from issuance day.

Section 16: Effect of Death Before Accrual

Limitation for suits/applications computes from when a legal

representative can act if the right accrues on/before death of entitled
person or potential defendant. Excludes
pre-emption/possession/hereditary office suits.
Case Law: Ramji Sao v. Jageshwari (1964 Pat 272) held
computation starts post-death when representative is appointed.

Section 17: Effect of Fraud or Mistake

Limitation starts upon discovery (with diligence) of
fraud/mistake/concealed documents by defendant/agent. Protects bona
fide purchasers; extends execution if fraud prevented it (within 1 year
of discovery).
Case Law: Pallav Sheth v. Custodian (2001) 7 SCC 549 ruled
plaintiff must prove fraud concealment and inability to discover
earlier.

Section 18: Effect of Acknowledgment in Writing

A signed written acknowledgment of liability before expiry restarts

limitation from acknowledgment date. Need not specify
amount/property; covers agents; undated writings allow oral date
proof.
Case Law: J.C. Budhraja v. Orissa Mining Corp. (2008) 2 SCC 444
held vague acknowledgments suffice if liability admitted.

Section 19: Effect of Payment on Debt/Interest

Payment by liable person/agent before expiry restarts limitation from

payment date, if acknowledged in their handwriting/signature (post-
1928 interest). Rent from mortgaged land counts as payment.
Case Law: Manik Chand v. Manohar (AIR 1981 Bom 28) validated
endorsement as sufficient acknowledgment.

Section 20: Effect by Another Person

Extends Sections 18-19 to guardians/managers for disabled persons;

excludes joint parties unless all liable; binds Hindu family
reversioners/managers.
Case Law: S. Rm. Ar. S. Sp. Sathappa Chettiar v. S. Rm. Ar. Rm.
Ramanathan (1958 SCR 1027) upheld manager's acknowledgment
binding family.

Section 21: Effect of New Plaintiff/Defendant

Suit deemed instituted for added/substituted parties from addition

date, unless good faith mistake allows backdating. Excludes
assignment/devolution.
Case Law: Gaddipati Siva v. Balepu (2015) 15 SCC 96 permitted
backdating for bona fide omission.

Section 22: Continuing Breaches and Torts

Fresh limitation runs at every continuing breach/tort moment.

Case Law: Baldeo Prasad v. State of UP (AIR 1960 All 463) applied
to ongoing nuisance.

Section 23: Acts Not Actionable Without Special Damage

Limitation computes from actual injury result for latent damage acts.
Case Law: N. Tata Rao v. Union of India (1990 AP 356) started
period from damage manifestation.

Section 24: Computation of Time in Instruments

Instruments use Gregorian calendar.

No major case law; straightforward statutory rule.